FMRI Clustering and False Positive Rates

Abstract

Recently, Eklund et al. (2016) analyzed clustering methods in standard FMRI packages: AFNI (which we maintain), FSL, and SPM [1]. They claimed: 1) false positive rates (FPRs) in traditional approaches are greatly inflated, questioning the validity of "countless published fMRI studies"; 2) nonparametric methods produce valid, but slightly conservative, FPRs; 3) a common flawed assumption is that the spatial autocorrelation function (ACF) of FMRI noise is Gaussian-shaped; and 4) a 15-year-old bug in AFNI's 3dClustSim significantly contributed to producing "particularly high" FPRs compared to other software. We repeated simulations from [1] (Beijing-Zang data [2], see [3]), and comment on each point briefly.

3 pages, 1 figure. A Letter accepted in PNAS

References in corpus (2)

• Can parametric statistical methods be trusted for fMRI based group studies?
• FMRI Clustering in AFNI: False Positive Rates Redux

Cited by in corpus (4)

• Cluster Failure Revisited: Impact of First Level Design and Data Quality on Cluster False Positive Rates
• Reply to Cox et al. and Kessler et al.: Data and code sharing is the way forward for fMRI
• A practical model-based segmentation approach for improved activation detection in single-subject functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging studies
• Multidimensional representations in late-life depression: convergence in neuroimaging, cognition, clinical symptomatology and genetics